Good morning Ladies & Gentlemen!

I have been aspiring to be a hobbyist for at least 8 years and would like your opinion which camera I should get, not that I the financial means to do so. I practically have nill experience. I tried reading as much as I can about which camera I should get, but have been SWARMED and overwhelmed with the information available.

I would love to start and grow as a hobbyist with a great camera with lots of flexibility. I've narrowed it down between SLR-alikes (i.e. FinePix S9500, CoolPix 8800, Canon Power Shot Pro1) or D-SLR's (i.e. Canon Rebel XT, D20 etc.). I'm leaning towards to the Rebel and D20. I was thinking about purchasing a 100mm Macro IS, and 28-135mm IS with these.

Do you think this is too much for a tyro like me? If I get a d-SLR-alike, I'm not sure if i'll be happy down the road if I got a new one. I plan to use my camera with landscapes, macros and portraits.

Last thing, I'm confused about the HUGE price discrepancies available on the net, especially about the D20. I've seen as low as sub-$800USD and high as $1200. What do you think of the cheaper vendors? Is the prodcut their selling legitimate or are they rip-offs or refurbished items?

I will be on a 3.5 week trip to the Philippines, Thailand and Palau and would love to bring a good versatile camera that I can grow in. Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Best,

Emerson

There are three aspects of a camera that you need to consider:

Image quality
Just about any dSLR currently being sold has superb image quality potential. In a fairly narrow range of conditions the non-SLRs can produce image files of quite acceptable quality. Lots of experience is required to get the most image quality out of any camera, but in general the less expensive the camera, the more often its limitations will fight you.

Functionality/Features
Covers things like wide angle, long tele, low light, infrared, histogram preview and review, and spot metering. Only you can decide which mix of features is important to you.

Usability/Ergonomics
This can really only be determined by handling and using a camera. If you know you have a weight or size requirement you can get that from the specs; but it is hard to determine whether the view finder or EVF or LCD is acceptable for your eyes from specs or reviews without lots of prior experience. Similarly for metering, control placement, handholding balance, etc.

Based on what little detail you've provided, I would suggest you go to a good camera store, handle all the dSLRs in your price range there, studiously ignore the sales person, then buy whichever one you like best along with the kit lens. Of course Canon and Nikon have big systems and are safe choices, but on the down side they cut corners on finder quality and/or metering and/or build quality in their lower end models. Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus are coming on strong, adding new dSLR-optimized lenses to their line-ups, and offering things like better finders, more accurate auto-focus, anti-shake, etc. in their affordable models to attract your dollars.

You mention the 28-135 IS and 100 macro, but this combo would leave you with nothing at the wide end, since the 28 end of the IS translates into 45mm in 35mm SLR terms. That's why kit lenses cover 18-55 or 18-70 these days. Kit lenses are also quite light; a budget dSLR + kit lens combo is light enough and small enough to carry around all day on a tourist jaunt without permanently crippling your shoulder.

One mis-perception you will want to fight is the idea that the non-SLR cameras are somehow easier to use and more beginner-friendly. If anything, the opposite is true. Every dSLR has a P for Program setting on the dial, which means you point and you shoot and leave all the settings to the computer inside the camera. The computer inside a dSLR is likely to be smarter, faster, and attached to better metering and auto-focus than the one inside a compact camera.

This can start a whole massive thread that runs the risk of leaving you even more overwhelmed with information and contradictory advice than you already have - so beware. I'll be brief and to the point:

(1) You say you want something you can grow with - that would suggest going the DSLR route - lens interchabgeability and generally more options, more flexibility.

(2) The Rebel XT is newer technology than the D20, very light and compact for travel and I've seen excellent results from it, though I have not used it myself. Both are very good cameras - check out the features of each, go to your retailer and hand-hold them, play with them, see which feels better in your hands, gives you a better look through the viewfinder etc. - these are surprisingly important factors when it comes to actually using the equipment for making photographs.

(3) For these cameras I would skip the 100mm macro, and replace it with a wide angle lens. That would combine well with the 28~135 (I own that lens and it is good). Otherwise, buying the purpose-built kit lens 18~70 makes sense - also a very good lens from results I've seen.

Thanks for the reply. I truly appreciate it.

Any thoughts on the Sub$800 price for the D20 from Online retailers? Is this too good to be true?

Best,

Emerson

check out http://www.resellerratings.com/ - plug in the vendor and see what folks have to say.

When you see huge price differences you do need to be careful with the lower ones regardless of the seller's rated reputation, though that is a good place to start. Check the fine print carefully to find out whether they are new, unrepaired cameras - and if they don't say, ask them first. Then they have a legal obligation to tell you the truth. Another factor could be whether the camera has a US guarantee. Check/ask about that as well, because if there is no Us guarantee it could be a "grey-market" product. That doesn't mean it's no good, but it does mean that Canon USA has no guarantee obligations in case something goes wrong with it, and repairs can be enormously costly. Newness and guarantee status are two factors I would verify before buying any camera on line, regardless of the price.

Emmerson,
I'd be happy to give you my two cents worth (although that's only US1.4 cents here in Australia).

If you are serious and want to a system you can grow with, I'd agree with Dale and Mark that a d-SLR system affords more flexibility, faster shooting (usually) and better image quality than an advanced compact.

A good compact like the Sony DSC-F828, Minolta A200 or such gives surprisingly good images, fast start-up, and a useful 28-200mm range in a small, lightweight, and very cost-effective system. This is a good option for travelling, is less conspicuous for street photography, and certainly not just a toy. There's a lot to like about them, although RAW performance (they take forever to get ready for a second shot, you really need to shoot in JPEG!), autofocus speed, and high ISO image quality are all compromises.

If you really would like to get serious and extend your photography (and have the budget for it), a decent little d-SLR system will be a great starting point. Please be aware that you will have to change lenses (potential lost shots and dust on the sensor), will have more to carry, be more conspicuous in a crowd, and will have a slightly steeper learning curve to make the most of it. I only really know Canon well, so sorry for the limited (er... zero) advice on other brands, but here is my ideal starter system:

-Canon Rebel XT (light, good image quality, excellent value-for-money) or 20D (heavier, better built, faster, good image quality (same as Rebel), more expensive),
-10-22mm EF-S (16-35mm equiv., only for reduced-frame sensors, expensive, good quality, but mind-blowing wide angle effects if you're not used to anything wider than 28mm),
-17-85mm EF-S image stabilised (again reduced sensor only, 28-135mm equiv. excellent range with image stabilisation, good quality),
-70-300mm image stabilised (up to 480mm equiv., good quality, image stabilised)

Remember to bring a tripod (even an inexpensive lightweight, portable one is better than nothing), spare batteries and charger, enough memory to get you by between downloads, cleaning kit, filters (esp. polariser).

Now after spending all this money on equipment, you may not have enough left over to travel, but you'll certainly be able to learn your craft. On the subject of sub $800 for the 20D, be very wary. I almost got suckered by an identical deal with that very model, and have a friend who ended up with a Japanese model, complete with kanji menu items and instruction book. She had a torrid time reurning it.

Which ever way you go, have a wonderful trip and happy shooting.

Regards,

Andrew

With either camera a 17-40L with a 70-200 f4L will give you a great range and incredible optics.

Beware, once you start with a DSLR then the 'L' (pro) lenses will follow, It's not an opinion, it's a prediction, especially when you hang around boards like this and see what they can do. These two lenses are among the cheapest of L zooms and well worth the effort. Put it this way, if you will end up buying them anyway, it's cheaper to get them now, not after a consumer quality lens such as the 28-135 which is inferior to either.

I would go for this lens combo and if the money it tight then buy a XT instead of the 20D, the lenses are far more important than the camera at this stage.

Emerson,

Andrew's advice is right on the money.

I suggest great care with Pom's advice about buying Canon "L" lenses. I would think this rather rich and unnecessary for someone who is just starting out and learning the craft. The lenses Andrew, Dale and I have suggested will give you very, very good image quality. "L" lenses are for highly dedicated amateurs working at pro level and for professionals who need the best Canon can offer. If you think you will fit either of these categories within the next two or three years - fine, Pom's advice could make "long-term" sense. Otherwise, save your money - and alot of it to boot. You can buy very good quality cheaper-than-L lenses now, use them for a few years, see whether you think you should graduate to L lenses, and if yes, resell them - you'll have had all that time making crisp, sharp photographs for a reasonable starters' outlay, all said and done.

Hi,

At the risk of playing the devil's advocate here, I think you should concentrate on a decent all-in-one digicam instead of a DSLR and expensive glass.
The main reason for this is, that you state you have no experience at all. In that case, I would say it is the best to get an allround camera which gives you the possibility to try everything from macro photography to trying to hold a X-times zoom lens still in heavy storm. It will give you a great package of different experiences.

I have been using a Fujifilm S602 for over two years now, and although it has its limitations (slow startup, low light focus is not super, AF in general is no rocket), there is nothing wrong with its capability to shoot nice pictures. In fact, I am sure it can do better than what I am getting from it now (minus lack of talent on my part, that is). Great macro capabilities, sufficient zoom in my urban environment. Personally I think the image quality will depend more on your ableness to get a good shot (at least for the first period of time: could be years...), than a heavy advantage for any specific camera.

So have a look at the Fujifilm you mentioned, or any of those for that matter, check the reviews again with an idea of what you want to do in mind, and the clouds will clear up

[Disclaimer: I do not lay claim to any expertise concerning photography, the above is what I have found out during my learning process up to now]

I see your problem with the L glass route Mark and I understand that when you're starting out it's really hard to understand or justify such a large spend on lenses. Especially when there are far cheaper alternatives out there that have a similar spec on paper.

However, I do stand by the old adage of "spend as much as you can afford on decent lenses and then get a body to put them on with what ever is left".

One of the most common reasons for people starting out to look at their shots and wonder why they are nowhere near the quality they see others produce is cheap glass. I would much rather have just a good quality 50mm to work with and then try and build from this as and when I coud find good quality used bargains than have a few budget zooms.

Ultimatley the deciding factor is always going to be budget and I'm just trying to add another option to the debate.

Adages are one thing and practical reality is something else.

Someone who is just starting out, who is on a tight budget, who wants to do the best they can on limited resources and who doesn't know yet where this hobby will take them shouldn't be advised to plunk thousands upon thousands of dollars into L lenses. For example, he can buy a 24~105 L for 1250 or a 28~135 for 400. (Neither will provide wide-angle on a Rebel or a D20, so he will still need a wide-angle lens.) The 28~135 will give him perfectly satisfactory photos for as long as he needs to decide whether he should move up to the L level. If he decides he doesn't need it he's saved himself over 800, and if he decides say in a couple of years that he wants the L he can probably sell the 28~135 for 200 and apply it to the purchase of the L. He will only have expended about 200 on a valuable learning experience and done perfectly acceptable photography in the process. And by that time there may even be economically superior options to chose from at the high end.

Those of us who are now experienced photographers with some financial means need to think back to the days of our humble beginnings and ask what was sensible for us then - even though technology has changed, in this respect the logic hasn't changed. If we are going to be useful to beginners coming to this website for advice we need to shed our pre-disposition for the bleeding edge and be relevant to the situation we are advising. We should be encouraging beginners to make choices based on sound, logical thinking about the present and future costs and benefits of alternatives. There is no need and no economic sense in "going for broke" on lenses from Day One unless the purchaser is MIGHTILY sure of their long term needs and intentions.

I also commend Erusan's advice as worthy of consideration. It is realistic.

The buyer is talking about a 20D with a 28-135 and 100 macro, ($2650 after rebates)

An XT with 17-40L + 70-200 f4L ($2445 after rebates) as I recommended is hardly 'thousands and thousands' more, infact it's cheaper! and will give a 'better' range as well as two well regarded and fantastic L zooms and probably better images all in all.

All prices USA stock from B&H.

Advising the poster (a beginner to the SLR world) to buy the 20D + inferior glass for more than the XT with superior glass, not sure about that....

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, either. Canon's DSLRs are all capable of excellent image quality, so even a Rebel with good glass will capture excellent images. But put a coke bottle on a 1Ds-MkII and you'll still get mushy crap.

The DSLR image quality differential between brands and lines within a brand is decreasing. 3 years ago, brand choice was a critical factor in what one could do with a DSLR. If you were shooting indoor concerts with available light, only a complete fool would have chosen a Kodak 14n over the Canon 1Ds at that time, and Nikon didn't really have anything to offer. The situation is different now; while there are still differences between brands, one can use a DSLR from Canon, Nikon, Leica, or Olympus, and get images that are good-to-excellent quality in most shooting situations. It's more of a Ford-Chevy thing now instead of Yugo vs Porsche. As this trend continues, glass will increasingly become the primary equipment image quality bottleneck, just like it was back in the days of film.

A Canon Rebel XT with the 17~85 mm IS USM kit lens is 1230 dollars at B&H. That is as far as Emerson needs to go to get started, and he'll get great pictures with it.

Granted. Maybe the new 70-300 IS to go with it or even better, a tripod!

If you have no real expereince, see the reviews on the new Sony. It has a good peice of glass, Carl Zeiss, and can do macro, wide, and has a 120mm zoom. It also has a C size sensor now. I owned a F828 Sony, its predessesor, and was happy until I decided to take the elap to "pro" level photography (meaning I want to get paid, and thus need the best possible quality money can buy--my money!).

Here is a link to a review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

And this may be of interest too. I bougth my entire Sony F828 with filters and had about 1, 000 total in it. After about 9 months of use, I sold it on ebay for 677.00 Not a huge loss, so the Sony holds its value too. Using this camera will teach you all you need to know about aperture, shutter speeds, ISO, and other things you need to know before getting into higer level equipment. It will also not overwhelm you, since you only have one fixed lens to work with.

Good luck.